If you cover your ears, you can't hear the bomb go off

D.C.'S DRONE DEBATE

Updated 4:25 pm, Friday, March 8, 2013

Photo: Associated Press

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

This video frame grab provided by Senate Television shows Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaking on the floor of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 6, 2013. Senate Democrats pushed Wednesday for speedy confirmation of John Brennan's nomination to be CIA director but ran into a snag after a Paul began a lengthy speech over the legality of potential drone strikes on U.S. soil. But Paul stalled the chamber to start what he called a filibuster of Brennan's nomination. Paul's remarks were centered on what he said was the Obama administration's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes inside the United States against American citizens. (AP Photo/Senate Television) less

This video frame grab provided by Senate Television shows Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaking on the floor of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 6, 2013. Senate Democrats pushed Wednesday for ... more

Photo: Associated Press

If you cover your ears, you can't hear the bomb go off

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

"Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone-strike program if he were in the Senate," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., declared in the course of his 13-hour Senate "talking filibuster" that delayed a confirmation vote for now-CIA chief John Brennan.

That's the thing: the Obama of 2007 no longer exists.

Obama 2007 opposed enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA used on al Qaeda leaders under President George W. Bush. Obama 2013 banned the use of those techniques. Now he orders others to just kill al Qaeda terrorists.

The imperious president has an attorney general who, when Paul asked if it is constitutional for the president to authorize a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without a trial, would not respond with an unequivocal "no." In a letter addressed to Paul Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder even wrote that it was possible "to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate." Paul then chose to filibuster the Brennan vote until the administration gave him a clear response.

On Thursday, finally, Holder gave a simple answer: "No." The Senate then voted 63-34 to confirm Brennan.

If the White House won with its CIA pick, then it also lost in the process. Rand's filibuster clearly was rooted in principle, while the president's liberal use of drones clashes with his pre-White House posture. Rand's rhetoric united the Libertarian-leaning right with the far-left Code Pink, which furiously sent out #StandwithRand Tweets into the wee hours. One Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, joined . Quoth Wyden: "Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them."

Worse, for the administration: Wyden announced that both Rand and he "feel that this is just the beginning of the debate."

The Brennan vote saw 13 Republicans join Democrats in supporting Obama's pick. "I was going to vote against Brennan, until the filibuster," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Roll Call. "I thought Brennan was arrogant, a bit shifty. I am going to vote for Brennan now because it's become a referendum on the drone program."

I disagree. One can support the 2011 drone attack that killed American-born Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, and still welcome a debate about the appropriate use of drones. Besides, why did it take days for Holder to just say no?

Three senators who belong to the Democratic Caucus - Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders of Vermont - voted against Brennan. It can't be easy to see yourself as strong on civil liberties when your party's top cat has such a schizophrenic approach - waterboarding bad, drones good - to human rights.

To me the big question is: Why did Obama change from waterboard foe to drone devotee? Once in office, did he realize he was wrong about Bush policies - in which case he should say so? Or has he come to believe that he is so darn wonderful that he can do no wrong?

Dr. Paul goes to Washington

"I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan's nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don't rise to oppose John Brennan's nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle.

"The principle is one that as Americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the Bill of Rights, to give up on the Fifth Amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted...

"There was a man named al-Awlaki. He was a bad guy, by all evidence available to the public that I've read, he was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death. I still would have tried him in a federal court for treason and I think you (he) could have been executed. But his son was 16 years old... and goes to Yemen. His son is then killed by a drone strike. "

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.